well some that come to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Freo - Freopedia only cost for
WMAU has been Craig to Perth for the Launch, and from reports was well
recieved at Wikimania in Hong Kong...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_Waroona,
prelude to a Wikitown there.
then there 2 of us doign a workshop tomorrow in Toodyay, and 3 of us
being part of the Shire of Toodyay demostrations on Saturday for a
third WikiTown there -- WMAU approved $200 to cover some expenses but
well below the true costs of running the two

add to that, the work of SatuSuro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Takes_Western_Australian_Wheatbelt_Railways_2013
and to that a larger Wheatbelt project...

Its not talking about ideas thats going to change things it needs more
people to get out there and do things,

Gideon

On 8 October 2013 10:39, Adam Jenkins <adam.jenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realised one big mistake in the wording of my email. The question as to
> what projects we can put into place is not intended at the committee as
> such, but for everyone interested. I've started talking to people about some
> ideas, but I'm wondering how we, as WMAU, can work out some really good
> projects to put us into a position where we exceed the WMF's expectations,
> and what ideas to do so we can come up with. :)
>
> Adam.
>
>
>
> On 8 October 2013 11:50, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> kickstarter?
>> I think it now does Australian projects...
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Adam Jenkins <adam.jenk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Thanks for explaining things. I need to say upfront that I'm not trying
>>> to raise doubts about the ARC linkage grant. But from reading the replies,
>>> we are currently in the process of committing $140k over three years based
>>> on existing funds of (at best) $75k. I disagree that we should be tackling
>>> this on the understanding that we can pull out in subsequent years - it
>>> would be very unusual for that to be permitted, as it would leave the
>>> university with insufficient funds to complete the research. If that
>>> happened, the university would have to convince another partner to cover the
>>> remaining funds, reduce the research scope, or cancel the project. If
>>> cancelled, we damage our reputation with partner institutions as well as
>>> losing any money previously invested. If a partner steps up, we damage our
>>> reputation. We need to go into this with the intent of being committed for
>>> the full amount, not with the belief that we are able to pull out if the
>>> funds don't materialise.
>>>
>>> So from what you are saying, we are in trouble. Not as much trouble as we
>>> would be if the $50k payment was still expected in 2014, but not in a nice
>>> place. We have only half the funds needed to meet existing (or at least in
>>> process) commitments over the next three years, (and are short of having
>>> enough funds to meet our commitments in the next two years), have no
>>> additional funds to spend on new projects unless we pull the money from the
>>> linkage grant commitment (which will increase the risk of defaulting) or
>>> pull out of that project (which we certainly do not want to do), and are
>>> being told that we would be unsuccessful in getting funds through the major
>>> funding body (the FDC) that has been providing grants to the Chapters.
>>>
>>> Going on the assumption that we should move forward with the linkage
>>> grant, (which we should do), we need to guarantee at least $10k from the WMF
>>> or the FDC to meet the 2015 commitment, assuming no additional expenditure,
>>> and $50k to meet 2016.  This will be difficult, in that I gather there will
>>> not be a deliverable until 2017, so we need to present this as a three year
>>> program instead of focusing on the annual grant model, or we will need to
>>> show metrics which can be applied each year. This is especially problematic
>>> for us as the measuring tools linked to do not seem to work well for this
>>> sort of project. That said, I don't think that any of this is impossible.
>>>
>>> So back to my initial question, how do we tackle this? At worst, we need
>>> funding through Round 1 of the 2014/2015 FDC grants process, which means we
>>> need to be in a position to successfully request funding by September next
>>> year, or be assured that we can get funds for our needs through an
>>> alternative grants process by the end of 2015. Thus, what projects can we
>>> put in place that either require no funding or very limited funding, will be
>>> fully completed by September 2014, (including all reporting requirements and
>>> metrics), and will be impressive enough as a set to justify a large grant
>>> for an unusual project? And if we do need more funding for these projects,
>>> how much time do we need to factor in so as to go through the grants process
>>> with the WMF, or do we risk pulling funds from those currently committed?
>>>
>>> I should also add that I think that the committee and members have done
>>> some great work over the last year. I think part of the problem is that we
>>> haven't been informing the WMF of the successes and strength of the current
>>> committee as well as we should. In coming up with new projects, we should
>>> also be looking at how we share the successes beyond the metrics offered. I
>>> believe that if the WMF was better aware of some of the work the committee
>>> has been doing, funding would be much less of an issue.
>>>
>>> Adam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 October 2013 23:34, G. White <whiteghost....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>
>>>> I went to the initial meeting/workshop/training session of the new
>>>> Program Evaluation and Design (PE&D) Team  that is now working closely with
>>>> the Grants Team. In line with what Sue has recently said about measurable
>>>> impact for money spent, the team is developing and disseminating tools to
>>>> help Wikimedians gather data to help measure the inputs/outputs/outcomes 
>>>> and
>>>> longer term impacts of programs and activities. They have produced this 
>>>> data
>>>> prep sheet. Here is the Evaluation Portal.
>>>>
>>>> Craig is right about getting demonstrable small runs on the board to
>>>> show we can plan AND deliver - that is, BOTH, not just one or the other.
>>>> When I was talking to some of the leaders of the Grants team, they were
>>>> bewildered at the fractiousness and unresponsiveness of the Australian
>>>> chapter (they were referring to the period before the last Chapter
>>>> election). From a distance, the level of general disarray and argument
>>>> appears comparable to the US government's current paralysis, and about as
>>>> comprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> The Chapter needs good processes because good processes produce good
>>>> outcomes. However, processes are not the same thing as rules.  We need to
>>>> quietly and competently incorporate any necessary rules into our processes.
>>>> Kerry and Craig are working on this. Then we need to document our processes
>>>> and get on with small, achievable, well planned programs. I agree with 
>>>> Craig
>>>> that our success will not be measured in how much funding we get.
>>>>
>>>> Whiteghost.ink
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 October 2013 19:27, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Before WMAU would need to pay even the first year of money for the
>>>>> linkage grant, we (WMAU, UQ and APC) have to agree a legal contract in
>>>>> relation to project. The UQ-drafted contract we have been given would seek
>>>>> to commit WMAU to all 3 years of funding. Obviously WMAU does not wish to
>>>>> agree to that given the uncertainty in relation to this funding and we 
>>>>> will
>>>>> be seeking to have the contract varied to allow us to not make the
>>>>> subsequent payments if we have not been able to obtain those funds from 
>>>>> WMF
>>>>> (or elsewhere). There are other issues with the contract in relation to
>>>>> intellectual property, levels of indemnity etc that also need to be
>>>>> resolved. I agree with Craig that this is likely to be a slow process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If any WMAU member happens to be a lawyer, we would be very happy to
>>>>> have your assistance in this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kerry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Craig
>>>>> Franklin
>>>>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013 3:31 PM
>>>>> To: Wikimedia-au
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding Query
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the question.  As you've noted, we haven't put in a funding
>>>>> request to this round's FDC process.  This has largely come about because 
>>>>> in
>>>>> discussions with members of the FDC and the Foundation staff supporting 
>>>>> the
>>>>> FDC, we were 'encouraged' not to apply in this round for a variety of
>>>>> reasons.  Chief among those was a desire to see a more substantial record 
>>>>> of
>>>>> evaluation, impact, and value for money in the projects that we do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To this end, we need to reposition the chapter from an organisation
>>>>> that attempts large, expensive, and complex projects to an organisation 
>>>>> that
>>>>> sets goals that are more modest, measurable, and achievable.  This is 
>>>>> going
>>>>> to require a cultural shift in the way we administer the chapter, as our
>>>>> previous success in participating in the fundraiser means that we have not
>>>>> developed the evaluation and project management mechanisms that we would
>>>>> have done if we'd continued to evolve without the sudden windfall 
>>>>> injection
>>>>> of tens of thousands of dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In relation to the actual figures and numbers, I'm happy to share
>>>>> those.  Please note that the figures I'm quoting here are only 
>>>>> approximate,
>>>>> I'm sure that John Vandenberg can come and give more precise figures if
>>>>> they're needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The commitment for the first round of the Paralympic project is in the
>>>>> realm of $25,000.  This payment has not yet been made, while we continue 
>>>>> to
>>>>> work with UQ and APC to determine how this will work administratively.  As
>>>>> you've noted, this money is quarantined and locked in, subject to the
>>>>> necessary paperwork with UQ and APC being agreed to.  At the moment, I'm
>>>>> expecting the actual payment will probably not occur until early in 
>>>>> calendar
>>>>> year 2014 (but I might be pleasantly surprised).  Kerry is handling the
>>>>> direct negotiation with APC and UQ and may be able to provide further
>>>>> context.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Year two and three come to about $50k a pop, but this money is *not*
>>>>> guaranteed.  We have been extremely upfront with everyone involved that we
>>>>> will only be able to fund the second and third years if we get the money
>>>>> from the Foundation (or from elsewhere).  So at some point we're going to
>>>>> need to ask for this money, but not for quite some time.  Obviously, we've
>>>>> been firm that the best way to actually guarantee that we'll get the 
>>>>> funding
>>>>> is for the first year's investment to produce those measurable outcomes 
>>>>> for
>>>>> the Wikimedia movement so we can make a good argument that it's a project
>>>>> worth investing further in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently have on the order of $80k in cash reserves, and if you
>>>>> subtract the $25k for the APC project that leaves us with about   Subtract
>>>>> another $5k for essential running costs over the next year (financial
>>>>> software, office supplies, etc etc), and that leaves us with about $50k to
>>>>> play with.  $50k is a lot of money and it should be possible to achieve a
>>>>> lot of impact with this, especially if we keep in mind that projects 
>>>>> should
>>>>> be modest, measurable, and achievable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More generally speaking, I am wary of equating success for the chapter
>>>>> purely in terms of how many dollars we can squeeze out of the Foundation.
>>>>> Success needs to be measured in terms of our impact, whether that is the
>>>>> creation of new content, the recruitment of new editors, or encouraging
>>>>> diversity.  I believe that by concentrating on smaller and simpler 
>>>>> projects,
>>>>> we can have a measurable impact in those spaces within the next twelve
>>>>> months, without exhausting our reserve funds, which will put us in a much
>>>>> better position to request money for the Linkage Grant and other 
>>>>> programmes
>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 15:18:09 +0000
>>>>> From: Adam Jenkins <adam.jenk...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: Wikimedia-au <wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Funding query
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>
>>>>> <cabrrgoa3eyqtkpilw42asfhw0qsvnns5ri_hrhxa+25icoc...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I was surprised to see that WMAU didn't put in an application for
>>>>> funding
>>>>> with the FDC in the October round. As a result, we won't be getting any
>>>>> funds from that route in 2013, especially as we didn't apply in the
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> round. As near as I can figure, we currently have commitments of at
>>>>> least
>>>>> $54k in 2014 as part of the ARC Linkage grant, along with the $29k
>>>>> commitment for 2013 (which was quarantined and covered), but it seems
>>>>> that
>>>>> meeting these commitments will drain us of remaining funds unless
>>>>> something
>>>>> has changed with the Linkage grant or we have an alternative revenue
>>>>> stream
>>>>> in place.
>>>>>
>>>>> In light of comments about the possible changes to FDC funding, where
>>>>> does
>>>>> this leave us? Do we have sufficient funds to see us out until June,
>>>>> 2014,
>>>>> when the next FDC round is due to be decided?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that this may be worth discussing, especially if there's
>>>>> anything
>>>>> that we can do to get alternative revenue sources in place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adan,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Leigh Blackall
>> +61(0)404561009
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to